Photographer arrested at Texas Octoberfest gathering

[Heath]

I would like to examine the images in question before I pass judgement on this.

A few months ago I had the chance to photograph a family cycling event that was raising funds for charity. I used my EOS 300D with 2 zooms, a 35-80 and a 80-200. Did I look suspicious taking photos of the cyclists who were standing around the staging area, or riding the different parts of the course? I guess I didn't, because I was never approached by anyone asking if I was an pfficial part of the event.

I think this guy must have looked suspicious while he was busy snapping away, or the officer was a bit over-zealous in his thinking.

Heath

 

[iggers]

There's illegal and there's illegal

There's illegal and there's illegal

Alleged by a state legislature to be illegal, but not so that a court would uphold it.

I'd bet a Longhorn steer that a law premised essentially on "without consent and for sexual gratification" would never hold up in court in a case of "conventional" picture-taking (i.e., not surreptitous "upskirt" stuff) in public that does not involve an obvious sexual or perverse element. Say, shots of people in a park or children on swings or skaters on a rink. Even a Texas court would have to reject such a charge, based on any number of grounds, starting with vagueness. But for most folks, that is a minor detail, as in reality the cop's interpretation on the scene is 99% of the law. Even if a charge were laid and the photographer fought it, the public prosecutor would never give the poor photographer the satisfaction of winning such an easy case, and would withdraw. You can't win.

The way I read it was: if pictures were taken without consent AND used for sexual gratification, THAT is illegal.

 

[RJBender]

So much for my bratwurst joke.

In Texas it is illegal to take photos of a sexual nature in public place of business or any other public facility without the signed consent of those involved.

The two cases I know of were one a restaurant owner installed a spy cam in the woman's restroom and the other involved a gym owner who installed a similar device in changing room and three some moron with a digital camera.

Throw in the statute that forbids the possession of pedophile type photos and suddenly those swing set photos or kids popping down the slide at the playground open a second avenue of prosecution.

If the kids parents have their mind made up that you look like a sexual predator with a camera, look out. The wurst photos of the Dallas suburb's October Fest is the first case that I've heard of taking place in a public park.

Have you ever taken the wife and kids to Chuck's restaurant in Wentzville, MO?
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n3_v87/ai_15969340

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Alleged by a state legislature to be illegal, but not so that a court would uphold it.

I'd bet a Longhorn steer that a law premised essentially on "without consent and for sexual gratification" would never hold up in court in a case of "conventional" picture-taking (i.e., not surreptitous "upskirt" stuff) in public that does not involve an obvious sexual or perverse element. Say, shots of people in a park or children on swings or skaters on a rink. Even a Texas court would have to reject such a charge, based on any number of grounds, starting with vagueness. But for most folks, that is a minor detail, as in reality the cop's interpretation on the scene is 99% of the law. Even if a charge were laid and the photographer fought it, the public prosecutor would never give the poor photographer the satisfaction of winning such an easy case, and would withdraw. You can't win.

My guess is that the cops got involved because some irate dad was "fixin'" to "kick sum ass." It should be interesting to see what happens with this case. BTW, the defendant is not a registered sex offender in Texas:
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm
Check out your neighborhood here:
http://www.familywatchdog.us/

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

the police are clearly spinning this story as a 'sexual predator' situation.. I'm rather concerned about this one.. particularly the police officer who says "You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person."

of course it's the police officer who arrested the man for taking photos in a public place, then searched through the photos he had taken, thus determining in his opinion that the photos were of a sexual nature

I'm fairly certain the police violated his rights a few times during the proceedings.. and by this cop's standard, quite a few of us in RFF could be guilty of taking photos of attractive women without their consent

Hey Brett, did you ask that girl with the water bottle in Chicago if she was 18? 😕


R.J.

 

[JoeFriday]

and my impression was that the police got involved because some single mom didn't like having her photo taken, or possibly her kid's, so she flagged a cop who was just standing by and complained

but that's just the way my imagination works.. I've read too many stories about ordinary people who were detained and/or prosecuted because someone else was offended

we'll probably never know in this case what really happened.. but keep in mind that this photographer's name and face has been plastered all over the internet (I learned about it on the Drudge Report, which gets millions of hits a day).. so, innocent or guilty, he's going to have a reputation that he will never lose due to the the 'wonderful technique' of googling a name

 

[JoeFriday]

Hey Brett, did you ask that girl with the water bottle in Chicago if she was 18? 😕

R.J.

yeah, I flagged her down, asked for an ID, got her to sign a consent form and then told her to walk away so I could take photos of her butt.. she was more than happy to comply.. at least with the walking away part

 

[justins7]

It's amazing how much street photography has changed since the 1930's. Back then Leicas and spontaneous photography were so new that people in public were often puzzled. (Just look at the people in photos by Ben Shahn, Walker Evans and others. They seem so surprised to see a camera, if they notice or care at all.)

Today, cameras don't even need to be hidden; some are the size of a penny, and everyone has one. Is real street photography dead, when anyone can spy on anyone?

 

[RJBender]

In Texas you cannot take pics from public right of way without a permit.
So the pothole pics were illegal if he didn't have a permit.

Crap! I guess I broke the law when I took a picture of a storm sewer in Daley Plaza last year.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

yeah, I flagged her down, asked for an ID, got her to sign a consent form and then told her to walk away so I could take photos of her butt.. she was more than happy to comply.. at least with the walking away part

ROFLOL 😀

 

[JoeFriday]

Crap! I guess I broke the law when I took a picture of a storm sewer in Daley Plaza last year.
R.J.

the one by the grassy knoll?

 

[RJBender]

the one by the grassy knoll?

Yeah, the one where some theorists believe the last shot came from.

R.J.

 

[JoeFriday]

I saw that on some documentary where some brilliant guy developed a 3D extrusion program where he could take a grainy photograph from 40 years ago and extrapolate a 3 dimensional image.. he used the Zapruder film to construct the head wounds of JFK and thus concluded that one of the shots came from the aforementioned storm sewers

next, he took a photo out of an old bible and determined the exact location of Noah's Ark

(ok, I made that last part up, but it's just as plausible)

 

[dmr]

Hey Brett, did you ask that girl with the water bottle in Chicago if she was 18?.

I just thought of something. I think I told this story before.

My brother had what he called his "beach lens" which was one of those super-cheap Spiratone (400mm I think) telephotos. Yes, he would take it to the beach and shoot semi discreet pics of girls on the beach. I just thought of it as normal behavior for a late teenager with more hormones than he needed, hey, boys will be boys.

Now that I think of it, I'm sure many of his subjects were under 18, and yes, somebody could read sexuality into these photos.

I never thought of my brother as a pervert or a peeping tom, but by some definitions ...

Introspective moment here, I used to laugh this off as typical adolescent behavior, but when I hear of some pervert doing things like upskirt shots, I go ballistic, even though the beach photos show far more. I think of the upskirt photos as a gross invasion of privacy, bordering on assault. 🙁 Yep, some fine lines here ...

 

[prosty]

In addition to being peeved about this Texas law, I'm troubled by the sensationalistic tone of the report in general. If you can view the video, do so. It's terribly enlightening to see TV news faces look down their noses at someone who apparently takes pictures of other people w/o their consent. You'll also notice the ominous slant that really kicks off after the police officer's comments. The reporter goes from the issue of photographic consent to pedophilia and sexual assault. Cue an interview with a nanny who, shockingly, is scared by the thought of someone taking pictures of children's body parts for sexual gratification, as such practices create sexual predators. The reporter then closes by using police comments to cement the link b/w nonconsensual photography and physical assault, taking the implications of street photography to an even more threatening level....

 

[Kevin]

Bogus

Bogus

You cannot prove Vogel's intent, therefore the arrest and charges are bogus. With a good attorney he should be fine.

By the way, that TV report is one of the worst pieces of slanted journalism I have ever seen.

 

[JoeFriday]

I'm guessing you've never been in a Texas courtroom, Kevin.. while what you say is true in a theoretical sense, judges and DAs often don't spend much time contemplating theory.. and that axiom that you're innocent until proven guilty? that only works for OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson.. for the rest of us, if it's your word against a cop's, the case is decided before you walk in the door

and even if the guy does win the case, he'll have to fork over thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars to get a good lawyer.. it could take him years to pay off his innocence

 

[rovnguy]

Things are definitley different in Texas. I visit down there a couple of times per year and have had some lively encounters with local authorities. I have learned that it really helps to talk to the local police first, preferably over a glass of iced tea before you get going. Here is what can happen:

Beautiful downtown Junction, Texas (pop. 2500) has a unique old theater, oddly called "The Texan." It is painted white and I had been thinking about photographing it at night while using colored light to liven up the old white building. I discussed this with the local Chief of Police over breakfast and he seemed quite interested. He told me he didn't see any problem with it and he would brief his force on the night shift so there would be no misunderstanding. Things were looking good. I set up my cameras on tripods (Yashica 124G and Minolta Hi-Matic 7S) and got started. Then a police car drove up. The cop didn't get the word. I asked him to call the Chief. He wouldn't. I offered to call him. He got nervous and told me just pack it in and move on. As much as I wanted to confront this idiot cop, I just put things up and went away. At breakfast the next morning the Chief came over to see me and apologized for the events of the night before. No problem, I said. He was grateful for my avoiding a confrontation with his officer. In return for this, he got me hooked up for the next night as well as getting me into some incredible places that regular folks do not have access to. I'll post the "painted" theatre in a few days. So if you're shooting a camera in Texas, practice patience and good manners.

 

[Al Patterson]

Hypocrits in the new media.

Hypocrits in the new media.

I'm troubled by the sensationalistic tone of the report in general. If you can view the video, do so. It's terribly enlightening to see TV news faces look down their noses at someone who apparently takes pictures of other people w/o their consent.....

You mean, like the TV reporter who shoves a camera in someone's face when a relative has died and asks "How do you feel?"

It's almost to the point that the imbeciles in this country will demand that cameras should be illegal, as they are tools for terrorists.

 

[rovnguy]

Beautiful downtown Junction, Texas.